No. 22-132

Carlos Ruben Ruiz v. Massachusetts

Lower Court: Massachusetts
Docketed: 2022-08-10
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2) Experienced Counsel
Tags: 14th-amendment 5th-amendment criminal-procedure demeanor-evidence due-process fair-trial fifth-amendment fourteenth-amendment jury-instructions
Key Terms:
DueProcess FifthAmendment
Latest Conference: 2023-01-06 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid judges (or prosecutors) from instructing (or inviting) the jury to take into account a non-testifying criminal defendant's courtroom demeanor as a basis for finding guilt

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED In a criminal trial, “[d]ue process means a jury capable and willing to decide the case solely on the evidence before it, and a trial judge ever watchful to prevent prejudicial occurrences.” Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 217 (1982). Thus, a jury may not consider facts outside the official record in determining a criminal defendant’s guilt or innocence. See, e.g., Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 485 (1978). The lower court’s decision in this case offends that basic maxim. After the case was submitted to the jury in proceedings below, the jury foreman posed the following question to the trial judge: Can we take the defendants[’] body language into consideration? As evidence? Over petitioner’s repeated objections, but in compliance with settled Massachusetts law on the topic, the judge answered this way: While not evidence, the jury is entitled to consider any observations you made of the defendants’ demeanor during the trial. The lower courts are intractably split on the permissibility under the Federal Constitution of such an instruction. The question presented is whether the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid judges (or prosecutors) from instructing (or inviting) the jury to take into account a non-testifying criminal defendant’s courtroom demeanor as a basis for finding guilt. ii STATEMENT OF

Docket Entries

2023-01-09
Petition DENIED.
2022-12-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/6/2023.
2022-12-14
2022-12-14
Waiver of the 14-day waiting period for the distribution of the petition pursuant to Rule 15.5 filed by petitioner.
2022-12-07
2022-09-30
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted in part and the time is extended to and including December 7, 2022.
2022-09-28
Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 19, 2022 to December 8, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-09-19
Response Requested. (Due October 19, 2022)
2022-09-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/7/2022.
2022-09-07
Waiver of right of respondent Massachusetts to respond filed.
2022-08-08
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 9, 2022)
2022-05-17
Application (21A731) granted by Justice Breyer extending the time to file until August 12, 2022.
2022-05-12
Application (21A731) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from June 15, 2022 to August 12, 2022, submitted to Justice Breyer.

Attorneys

Carlos Ruben Ruiz
Michael B. KimberlyMcDermott Will & Emery LLP, Petitioner
Michael B. KimberlyMcDermott Will & Emery LLP, Petitioner
Massachusetts
Anna E. LumelskyMassachusetts Attorney General's Office, Respondent
Anna E. LumelskyMassachusetts Attorney General's Office, Respondent